On the standard of observation...

So if something is able to affect the natural world, would you say it has natural qualities by definition? Could something be both supernatural and natural simultaneously?

Are you ruling out the possibility that a supernatural force could affect the natural world despite our inability to observe it (this would be more of a limitation on us)?

There has to be some natural quality for there to be interaction within the natural world, yes. Now, as a limit on myself, I've not considered something being both natural and supernatural. Perhaps that is where an inability to observe comes into play: We don't understand how a natural/supernatural cause would present itself in only a natural environment.

I may need some time to think on that dichotomy. Granted, with an infinite being it's well within the realm of possibility, but I'd need to think on how I would see the two merged.---Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman

What do you mean by supernatural? If that word merely refers to things existing outside nature, then what is nature?

Nature is usually defined by everything that we know to exist. In reality, the word "universe" is the best word to use for that definition, but many, many, many people will play semantics so they don't have to be wrong.---I recently came back to this site. I don't have an interesting sig, so please say something interesting that I can put here.

It may come close to being possible, but it would ultimately require people to be willing to not be 100% empirical in their worldview. I don't think that will settle well with a lot of individuals -- I think I would struggle with that too. People apply empiricism universally and if something is unable to be observed empirically then it is dismissed; but I'm proposing that if something can't be observed empirically, we develop another way to approach it. But I do understand what you say as far as it being impossible to perceive and therefore impossible to interpret.

First, let me point out that when I say empirical data in this context, I'm not talking about repeatedly observed and recorded evidence of the kind that is generally required for scientific rigor. There are many many subjects we might gain knowledge about where such data simply is not available, and that's fine. What I mean by an empirical data point is something that happened in the realm we live in.

My point was more that literally everything you and I have ever, or will ever, experience is empirical data. Every sensation, observation, thought, emotion, hunch, gut feeling, or memory arose from and is entirely contained within an empirical system.

It seems to me that asking a system like that to produce knowledge about entities entirely disconnected from it is like asking a train to travel to a destination where there are no rails.---Time flies like the wind, and fruit flies like a banana.

What do you mean by supernatural? If that word merely refers to things existing outside nature, then what is nature?

Nature is usually defined by everything that we know to exist. In reality, the word "universe" is the best word to use for that definition, but many, many, many people will play semantics so they don't have to be wrong.

Basically this. I don't like using the word "universe" in the place of "nature" because people typically only think of the physical in that case, and I want things like emotion to also be considered (which I find easier when referring to nature). It's more just a preference.

kozlo100 posted...

First, let me point out that when I say empirical data in this context, I'm not talking about repeatedly observed and recorded evidence of the kind that is generally required for scientific rigor. There are many many subjects we might gain knowledge about where such data simply is not available, and that's fine. What I mean by an empirical data point is something that happened in the realm we live in.

Okay, I can go with that.

My point was more that literally everything you and I have ever, or will ever, experience is empirical data. Every sensation, observation, thought, emotion, hunch, gut feeling, or memory arose from and is entirely contained within an empirical system.

It seems to me that asking a system like that to produce knowledge about entities entirely disconnected from it is like asking a train to travel to a destination where there are no rails.

So you are purely materialistic -- everything is in some way physical or the result of physical processes.

Just curious, would you consider such a frame of mind to be presumption? Do you presume everything is physical, or have you determined it to be a fact with no room for exception?

So you are purely materialistic -- everything is in some way physical or the result of physical processes.

Just curious, would you consider such a frame of mind to be presumption? Do you presume everything is physical, or have you determined it to be a fact with no room for exception?

For the purposes of this discussion I am, you assumed materialism right there in your first paragraph, so I don't really feel it's presumptuous to treat it as fact.

However, even beyond your assumption, if we humans have a non-material supernatural component to our selves, then that gets back into being a conduit for the supernatural to interact with the natural. If a god exists, and we can 'see' him, even if it's only with our supernatural aspects, then he's necessarily interacting with the natural, as we are at least partly natural creatures. In essence, we'd be translating supernatural data to empirical data when we perceive this god in any way.---Time flies like the wind, and fruit flies like a banana.

if we humans have a non-material supernatural component to our selves, then that gets back into being a conduit for the supernatural to interact with the natural. If a god exists, and we can 'see' him, even if it's only with our supernatural aspects, then he's necessarily interacting with the natural, as we are at least partly natural creatures. In essence, we'd be translating supernatural data to empirical data when we perceive this god in any way.

In other words, by converting supernatural interaction into a natural perception through some process within us, it makes what would normally be deemed "supernatural" natural. Sounds a bit pantheist in that the essence of God (or whatever we'd call that supernatural component of ourselves) is in all living things and have a link to the Creator.---Every once in a while I realize the human race may be worth saving. Of course, then I come back here, but still, those are good moments. -Readyman

For the purposes of this discussion I am, you assumed materialism right there in your first paragraph, so I don't really feel it's presumptuous to treat it as fact.

I assumed it, but I still find it a bit presumptuous myself (also I don't mean for that to sound as aggressive as it does). Materialism is based on the belief (or fact) that everything we've observed has some natural basis. But I think it's presumptuous to think that this trend will continue indefinitely, if that makes sense.

However, even beyond your assumption, if we humans have a non-material supernatural component to our selves, then that gets back into being a conduit for the supernatural to interact with the natural. If a god exists, and we can 'see' him, even if it's only with our supernatural aspects, then he's necessarily interacting with the natural, as we are at least partly natural creatures. In essence, we'd be translating supernatural data to empirical data when we perceive this god in any way.

Good point. I have no follow-up question to this. You have given me something to think about.